Elias said:
no, Stereolith is Stereolith, what is decribed in the patent You quote from is so called "Kehler speaker"
for Stereolith search http://www.freepatentsonline.com with "Walter Schupbach" as inventor
there You can find original (that is without mono tweeter)Stereolith patents
latest Stereolith version You can see above in this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...949#post1634949
by "Stereolith-related" patent I just mean sensu largo "a patent for a setup where speakers for L and R channels are opposite side firing"
just like in the old Brociner AES paper
best regards!
graaf
I was reading the Stereolith patent again - and I found out that Mr. Schupbach suggest as a variant using a "center channel" on the front of the box. The new Stereolith is probably the minimalist version of this approach - with leaving out the tweeter at the sides and no midbass at the front. Unfortunately, I do not have three identical loudspeakers to try this out - if it would fill out the "hole in the middle", that I felt was there. I guess a set of cheap HT speakers could be used for the test - and then replace them with something more "ultimate".
I just did an experiment with two crossed dipoles, like Blumlein´s stereo microphone. My beloved binaural recordings that contain a wealth of spacial information are completely spoiled. Just diffuse, no left, no right, no distance, nothing. Other true stereo recordings have a somewhat narrow soundstage, similar as the put-together Carlssons described avove, but with higher distance to the performers and some added "airiness". Recordings with synthetic reverb have a wide soundstage and good depth, but it´s a synthetic kind of spaceousness, probably as intended by those who build/use those reverb devices. Strangely this only works in a certain listening distance to the speaker. I didn´t test whether it is also dependent on the distance of the speaker to the wall. Personally for those "hate discs" I still prefer the CFS, that adds some "acousticness" that is not there in the recording, but as already said, letting it sound acoustic is probably not the intention of the producers of those discs.
Attachments
I have a hunch a monopole/dipole could work as well: A M/S mic in reverse.
A quick and dirty sketch attached.
It would be very important to have the dipole element produce a laterally symetric sound field. A MTM would lend itself to that with the woofers mounted back to back and a dipole tweeter.
A quick and dirty sketch attached.
It would be very important to have the dipole element produce a laterally symetric sound field. A MTM would lend itself to that with the woofers mounted back to back and a dipole tweeter.
Attachments
Hello Guys,
I confirm that the 2 drivers of Stereolith are in the same box separate by a partition not closed.
In my opinion, the best quality of Stereolith system is the soundstage more realistic than 2 loudspeakers system.
However sometimes with bad recording of CD, there is no soundstage and that is a problem.
Best regards!
Steff.E
Last edited:
NO DIPOLE NULL...correct
But what about coincident wave reinforcement/cancellations?
Sure most multiway speakers suffer with these anyway, but as many fullranger owners use FR setups to reduce this. This leaves me with one question?
what exactly is the point in using FR drivers if youre going to angles them to increase dispersion,at the considerable cost of creating quite nasty interference effects?
Or is this the so called 'REAL' stereo youre talking about? LOL sarcasm aside...im pretty sure this sort of setup would produce some major interference and lobing, esp in a pyramid box with loveky razor sharp edges..............
NOW thats a much better proposition(as well as being tried and tested) maybe even better if the drivers are employed isobarically(not sure if thats the plan or not simon)
though personally id only go this route if i had a huge room so the rear facing drivers were at least 6 ft away from walls, and give me a steroe image that doesnt sound like its coming midway in the wall
Last edited:
seems to be a new start for Stereolith - new Berlin-based marketing company, new website, new and better looks of the entire product line etc.
http://www.stereolith.com/
I wish them luck!
http://www.stereolith.com/
I wish them luck!
Last edited:
Late to the party...
This is quoted from: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/10962-stereolith-loudspeakers-question-9.html#post1633171
Has anyone tried this? This is probably a stupid quesiton.
Can we directly feed 2ch of (amplified) signals into a common load like this?
For example, if at one moment the HF signal appears on only one channel, then there's a level of voltage here, OTOH, the other channel is 0V. How can we assure there'd be precisely one-half of driving power feeding into the single tweeter?
The other (silent) channel would also be a load to the working one at that moment, no? Or most of the time, there should be some difference. Don't they become some kind of push-pull between the 2ch? Sorry I don't really understand all kinds of output stage designs of amps. I just remember reading several times, something like "the output of this amp can not be connected parallel directly"...
Isn't this parallel the output of amp (into the tweeter)?
This is quoted from: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/10962-stereolith-loudspeakers-question-9.html#post1633171
Has anyone tried this? This is probably a stupid quesiton.
Can we directly feed 2ch of (amplified) signals into a common load like this?
For example, if at one moment the HF signal appears on only one channel, then there's a level of voltage here, OTOH, the other channel is 0V. How can we assure there'd be precisely one-half of driving power feeding into the single tweeter?
The other (silent) channel would also be a load to the working one at that moment, no? Or most of the time, there should be some difference. Don't they become some kind of push-pull between the 2ch? Sorry I don't really understand all kinds of output stage designs of amps. I just remember reading several times, something like "the output of this amp can not be connected parallel directly"...
Isn't this parallel the output of amp (into the tweeter)?
Perhaps they are simply using a dual voice-coil tweeter? That would pretty much take care of all these issues!
Stereo recordings that have tweeter-range content that is both 180 out of phase and identical in level are practically nonexistent, (otherwise stereo recordings played on a monaural table radio wouldn't work!) so this very simple passive approach to the problem would be an ideal solution.
For DIY purposes and for a simple proof-of-concept, one could probably come pretty close just using two tiny tweeters vertically arrayed. Comb filtering above 10KHz is really not going to create a big problem, especially compared to all the other compromises the stereolith poses.
Try this DIY from this site:
HTGuide Forum - Raal Omni Discussion
scroll down till you reach the white speakers pairs, makes interesting reading.
I think it will sound superior to those from Stereolith.
HTGuide Forum - Raal Omni Discussion
scroll down till you reach the white speakers pairs, makes interesting reading.
I think it will sound superior to those from Stereolith.
Hi ttan98, thanks a lot for the link. What a brilliant 'form follows function' peice of work! I'll study it.
OTOH, my current requirement is a tweeter very near the rear wall with a very wide dispersion. Maybe a tweeter looks like one half of RAAL's omni ribbon (or Elac 4-pi) on wall would be ideal... Or, a cylinder facing the wall !!
OTOH, my current requirement is a tweeter very near the rear wall with a very wide dispersion. Maybe a tweeter looks like one half of RAAL's omni ribbon (or Elac 4-pi) on wall would be ideal... Or, a cylinder facing the wall !!
OK, I tried it. It works.
My tweeter is rated 8 Ohm, I use 2x 8.2 Ohm resistors for the Y connection. Since the real impedance of the tweeter is not flat, so I guess the voltage division is not entirely correct...
Nevertheless it works (and nothing blown). The tweeter is crossed very high (above 7~8kHz or so), I can not detect anything wrong by ears. Overall tonal balance seemed alright.
Other changes, like the physical arrangement of the driver... were also on going, re-EQ for sure, so no apple to apple comparison right now.